成人X站

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) 鈥� A federal appeals court upheld the racketeering convictions of former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and an ex-lobbyist on Tuesday in a $60 million bribery scheme that a prosecutor had described as likely the largest corruption scheme in state history.

The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati represented a win for the Department of Justice, which had secured the convictions in March 2023 after a yearslong investigation. Householder, a Republican, was sentenced to 20 years in prison, and lobbyist and former Ohio Republican Party chair Matt Borges was sentenced to five years in prison.

Householder was convicted of masterminding a $60 million bribery scheme funded by Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp. to elect allies, secure power, pass a $1 billion bailout of two of its affiliated nuclear plants and then defend the bill, known as House Bill 6, from a repeal effort.

Prosecutors had described Borges鈥� primary role in the scheme as working to thwart a ballot campaign aimed at repealing the tainted legislation. Specifically, he was accused of paying $15,000 to someone who was helping spearhead the effort in order to get inside information. The referendum ultimately failed to make the ballot.

Both men have a couple long shot legal options remaining: They could ask for a review by the full Sixth Circuit, or seek what鈥檚 known as certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping for consideration by the nation鈥檚 highest bench. Both types of requests are rarely granted.

Messages seeking comment were left for their attorneys, as well as with a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Cincinnati.

Householder’s appeal failed on all six claims he brought in hopes of a reprieve. He alleged erroneous jury instructions, insufficient and inadmissible evidence, violations of his right to counsel, judicial bias and that his sentence was unreasonable for the circumstances.

The 65-year-old Householder argued that the government was wrong in describing what he had engaged in as a bribery scheme. Instead, he cast the money that flowed from FirstEnergy into a network of secret dark money accounts that he controlled as legal campaign contributions. Federal prosecutors charged that the money was given to Householder in exchange for the passage of House Bill 6, providing the necessary quid pro quo to make his conduct illegal.

Householder had also faulted U.S. District Judge Timothy Black in his appeal, asserting that he failed to properly instruct the jury that an agreement is necessary to prove bribery and that Householder needed to have agreed he would take action 鈥渙n a specific and focused question or matter鈥� at the time that agreement was struck.

The judicial panel said all of his claims failed.

Borges鈥� appeal hinged on three technical points of law. All failed.

However, Circuit Judge Amul Thapar wrote in a concurring opinion that each of Borges’ contentions 鈥渞aises tricky and unresolved issues in honest services fraud jurisprudence.鈥�

鈥淎nd here, Borges has a good argument his conduct fell within a murky middle: perhaps objectionable, but not clearly illegal,鈥� he wrote. 鈥淯ntil the Supreme Court revises its caselaw, however, we must follow its precedent.鈥�